ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
A novel deep learning-based grading system for assessing breast arterial calcification on mammograms, as an independent risk factor for predicting adverse cardiovascular events.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop a deep learning-based framework for automated detection and grading of breast arterial calcification (BAC) on mammograms, and to evaluate its association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective case-control study used two datasets: SegModel (1270 mammograms with BAC annotations) and MACEPred (3190 mammographic cases of women with MACE, plus 6458 controls). A U-Net segmentation model and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for four BAC grading strategies: binary categorization, area-based grading (none, mild, moderate, severe), intensity-based grading, and a combined approach.
findingsThe U-Net attained a Jaccard similarity coefficient of 0.582, accuracy of 0.996, precision of 0.801, F1 score of 0.756, and recall of 0.716 in segmenting BAC. The presence of BAC was associated with an adjusted HR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.10-1.23). For area-based grading, the HRs for mild, moderate, and severe grades were 1.13 (95% CI 1.06-1.20), 1.30 (95% CI 1.18-1.45), and 1.58 (95% CI 1.15-2.18), respectively. Intensity-based grading showed respective HRs of 1.08 (95% CI 1.00-1.17), 1.10 (95% CI 1.01-1.20), and 1.18 (95% CI 1.09-1.28). The combined approach demonstrated respective HRs of 1.102 (95% CI 1.04-1.17), 1.249 (95% CI 1.14-1.37), and 1.654 (95% CI 1.30-2.10) for mild, moderate, and severe grades.
conclusionOur study presents a novel automated framework for BAC assessment that provides independent insights into cardiovascular risk in women. Combined area and intensity grading reflected increasing MACE risk across BAC severity levels, although its incremental predictive improvement was limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371293What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.